Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Fallacies based on correlatives include: [1] False dilemma or false correlative. Here something which is not a correlative is treated as a correlative, excluding some other possibility.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. [1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast [2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. [3]
Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [66]
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy where a general rule is applied to an exceptional case. The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.
The observational interpretation fallacy is the cognitive bias where associations identified in observational studies are misinterpreted as causal relationships. This misinterpretation often influences clinical guidelines, public health policies, and medical practices, sometimes to the detriment of patient safety and resource allocation.
Often, when the statistics are false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy. The consequences of such misinterpretations can be quite severe. For example, in medical science, correcting a falsehood may take decades and cost lives.
[1] [2] The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of